alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021452EN.01002001.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Achema and Achema Gas Trade v Commission

(Case T-193/19) (1)

(State aid - Aid to Litgas for the supply of a minimum quantity of LNG to the LNG terminal at the sea port of Klaipėda - Decision not to raise objections - Safeguarding procedural rights - EU framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for a service of general economic interest - Boil-off costs - Balancing costs - Security of supply - Article 14 of Directive 2004/18/EC - Body of consistent evidence)

(2021/C 452/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania), Achema Gas Trade UAB (Jonava) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, J. Wileur and N. Solárová, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: K. Dieninis and R. Dzikovič, acting as Agents), Ignitis UAB, formerly Lietuvos energijos tiekimas UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: K. Kačerauskas, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 7141 final of 31 October 2018 in State aid case SA.44678 (2018/N) — modification of aid for LNG terminal in Lithuania.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2018) 7141 final of 31 October 2018 in State aid case SA.44678 (2018/N) relating to modification of aid for LNG terminal in Lithuania, in so far as the Commission decided not to raise objections to the State aid resulting from the 2016 amendments; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2018) 7141 final of 31 October 2018 in State aid case SA.44678 (2018/N) relating to modification of aid for LNG terminal in Lithuania, in so far as the Commission decided not to raise objections to the State aid resulting from the 2016 amendments;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Achema AB, Achema Gas Trade UAB, the European Commission, the Republic of Lithuania and Ignitis UAB to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Achema AB, Achema Gas Trade UAB, the European Commission, the Republic of Lithuania and Ignitis UAB to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---
Exhibit 32.1

                              PACIFIC STATE BANCORP

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                         Regarding Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year Ended
                         December 31, 2006

                In  connection  with the Annual  Report of Pacific State Bancorp
        (the  "Company")  on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2006, as
        filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
        (the "Report'), the undersigned hereby certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
        Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

                (1)     The  Report  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
                        Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the  Securities and Exchange
                        Act of 1934; and

                (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                        in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and
                        results of operations of the Company


                                       BY: /s/ Steven A. Rosso
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           Date: March 29, 2007
Exhibit 99.4

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

OFFICERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The undersigned, a duly authorised representative of Westpac Banking Corporation, acting as Servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the Servicing Agreement
between Westpac Banking Corporation, Westpac Securities Administration Limited as Trustee and Westpac Securitisation Management Pty Limited as Trust Manager dated 12 March 2002 (the Agreement), certifies that:

1. As of the date hereof, Westpac Banking Corporation is the Servicer of Series 2002-1G WST Trust and Series 2005  1G WST Trust (Trusts).

2. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the 3 months ending 30 September 2006 and its performance under the pooling and servicing agreement or similar
agreement, referred to above as the Agreement, has been made under my supervision.

3. Based on such review, to my knowledge and after making appropriate
enquiries, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement or similar agreement relating to the Trusts throughout the period July 1 to September 30, 2006, except as may be set forth in paragraph 4
below.

4. The following is a description of any exceptions to paragraph 3. above:

None.

Capitalised terms used but not defined in this Officers Certificate of Compliance have their respective
meanings set forth in the Agreement, unless the context requires otherwise or unless otherwise defined in the Officers Certificate.



|                |  |                           
|--------------- |  | --------------------------
|Signature:      |  | /s/ T Vonhoff             
|Name:           |  | Trudy Vonhoff             
|Title:          |  | General Manager Operations
|25 October 2006



---

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|(Registrant) Westpac Securitisation Management Pty Limited
|                                                          
|By                                                        
|                                                          
|/s/ P Walden                                              
|Peter John Walden                                         
|Director                                                  
|22 November 2006                                          

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the
following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.



|                 
|-----------------
|By               
|                 
|/s/ /C Zuber     
|Curtis Alan Zuber
|Director         
|22 November 2006 



|                         
|-------------------------
|By                       
|                         
|/s/ C Bannister          
|Christopher Ian Bannister
|Director                 
|22 November 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          19,062
<SECURITIES>                                    28,321
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (14,758)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,362
<PP&E>                                           8,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,972)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,014
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,087)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,268
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,896
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,468
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,934
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,577
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,494
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,006
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,488
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,488
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
        

</TABLE>
#### WIDDEB, Appellant, v. LAZANSKY et al., Bespondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 4, 1912.)

Application of Samuel Widder against Edward Lazansky and others. No opinion. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs.
#### Edy GONZALEZ-SORIA, a.k.a. Edy Gonzalez Soria, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-72002.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Edy Gonzalez-Soria, Oxnard, CA, pro se.

Sara Bergene, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Edy Gonzalez-Soria, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order *438dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and denying his motion to continue. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence finding, *Landin-Zavala v. Gonzales,*488 F.3d 1150, 1151 (9th Cir.2007), for abuse of discretion the denial of a motionto continue, and de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gonzalez-Soria did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the record indicates that he was deported from the United States in 1997. *See Landin-Zavala,*488 F.3d at 1153 (deportation or removal terminates the accrual of physical presence).

The IJ did not abuse his discretion or violate due process in denying a continuance because Gonzalez-Soria did not demonstrate good cause. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown); *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

Gonzalez-Soria’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
##### 



Exhibit 14.11 Consent of Independent Accountants To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce S.A. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File
Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale Overseas of our report dated January
14th, 2004 on the financial statements of Mineração Rio do Norte  MRN, which appear in
the Annual Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the year ended December
31st, 2004. /s/ Deloitte Touche TohmatsuDELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU
 May 30th, 2005
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Prakash Agarwal, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporationon Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2003 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presentsin all material respects the financial condition and results of operations ofNeoMagic Corporation.

 
| Date:  December 10, 2003 | By:    |      /s/  Prakash Agarwal |   |
|--------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Name:  | Prakash  Agarwal                                   |
|                     | Title: | Chief Executive Officer                            |
|                          |        |                                                    |        |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ROSE HILLS COMPANY AND
SUBSIDIARIES, FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,045
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,979
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,170
<PP&E>                                         142,825
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 312,359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,570
<BONDS>                                         80,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     129,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   312,359
<SALES>                                         52,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,665
<CGS>                                           11,396
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,396
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,540
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       309
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (520)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          39,398
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,341
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,045
<INVENTORY>                                      1,231
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,583
<PP&E>                                          28,018
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,199
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           341
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,275
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,485
<SALES>                                         49,810
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,128
<CGS>                                            5,526
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,332
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,298
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,018
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,280
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,280
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42


</TABLE>
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000003729-JUN-201103:55 PM
[Cite as Johnson v. Office Healthcare Facilities Servs. , 2021-Ohio-4181.]

{¶1} On October 7, 2021, a Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation in this public-records case. The Special Master recommends the following: (1) dismissal of a claim for production of records a s moot, (2) a finding that Respondent failed to produce a requested record within a reason able period of time in violation of R.C. 149.43(B)(1), (3) a finding that Requester is entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that Requester has incurred, and (4) assessment of costs to Respondent. {¶2} Neither party has timely filed written objections to the Report and Recommendation, as permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant t o R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects to a special master’s report an d recommendation, then this Court is required to “promptly issue a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” {¶3} The Court determines that there is no error of law or other def ect evident on the face of the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation of O ctober 7, 2021. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Requester is entit led to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs TAMEKA L. JOHNSON

Requester

v.

OFFICE HEALTHCARE FACILITIES SERVICES

Respondent Case No. 2021-00240PQ

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

JUDGMENT ENTRYCase No. 2021-00240PQ -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY

associated with the action that are incurred by Requester, but Requester is not entitled to recover attorney fees. Court costs are assessed to Responde nt. Judgment is rendered in favor of Requester. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN Jud g e

Filed October 26, 2021 Sent to S.C. Reporter 11/29/21
# C_2019328EN.01002701.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2019 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Telefonica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

(Case C-539/19)

(2019/C 328/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Defendant: Telefonica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

Question referred

Are Articles 6a and 6e(3) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, as from 15 June 2017, mobile communications operators were required automatically to switch all customers to the regulated tariff under Article 6a of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 regardless of whether those customers hitherto had a regulated tariff or a special, so-called alternative, roaming tariff?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (OJ 2012 L 172, p. 10), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 (OJ 2015 L 310, p. 1).

---
#### In the Matter of Osriel L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 841]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about August 30, 2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously reversed, as an exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs, the delinquency finding and dispositional order vacated, and the matter remanded to Family Court with the direction to order an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal pursuant to Family Court Act § 315.3 (1), nunc pro tunc to August 30, 2011.

The court improvidently exercised its discretion when it adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent and imposed probation. This was not “the least restrictive available alternative” (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]). An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal would have sufficed to serve the needs of appellant and society *(see e.g. Matter of Tyvan B.,*84 AD3d 462 [2011]).

Appellant, who was 12 years old at the time of the underlying offense and adjudication, had no prior record. Appellant also had no background of serious trouble at home, at school, or in the community. There are no indications that appellant ever used drugs or alcohol, or was affiliated with a gang. Appellant accepted responsibility for his nonviolent theft of property.

Under the terms and conditions of an ACD, the court could have required the probation department to monitor appellant’s school attendance and observance of a curfew *(see e.g. Matter of Justin Charles H.,*9 AD3d 316, 317 [2004]). We also note that appellant’s mother voluntarily enrolled him in community counseling services while the case was pending. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.